Smt. Basanti Bai And 4 Others v. Kalyanchandra Sharma And Anr.

- 1 - W. P. No.13261/2013 28/09/2015 None for the Petitioners. Respondent through the counsel. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 29/07/2013 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/2009 by the Additional District Judge, Khachrod, Distt. Ujjain. In the present case, the matter was listed on last week also and no one was present on behalf of the petitioners, even in the second round. Today also no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract based upon an agreement dated 24/02/2001. A written statement was filed by the present petitioners before the trial Court. Issues have also been framed by the trial Court. In the written statement the defendants/present petitioners have admitted the execution of the agreement before the trial Court. After the commencement of trial an application was preferred under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amending the written statement and the same has been rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that the amendment application has been filed after commencement of trial and after issues have been framed and in those circumstances the trial Court has dismissed the amendment application. The trial has also observed that the amendment is not necessary keeping in view the pleadings of the parties. It is noteworthy to mention that the parties have earlier also approached this Court by filing a miscellaneous appeal i.e. - 2 - M.A.No.1144/2012 and this Court has directed the trial Court to decide the civil suit within a period of six months and therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, amendment is not necessary as it was preferred with a sole object to delay the trial. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and also the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. The trial Court has also rightly allowed the application preferred under Order XVIII Rule 2 of the CPC. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order and no case for interference is made out. The order passed by the trial Court can never said to be an order passed without jurisdiction nor it suffers from any perversity. The apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph

49 held as under:- "49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. - 3 - (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this - 4 - Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter- productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality." In light of the aforesaid judgment as there is no patent illegality committed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 29/07/2013. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the civil suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. C. C. as per rules. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E Tej